Obradovich: Immigration solution needs to be 'balanced'

Jun. 22, 2013

Written by

Kathie Obradovich

The immigration debate in Washington is like a spinning top, with border security on one side and a path to citizenship on the other. If one side gets heavier than the other, the top will wobble and eventually stop.

And yet some in Washington continue to treat the debate like a tug-of-war. They think if they can just tug on their side hard enough, the other side will let go. Victory! Somehow, we’ll have a secure border without creating a legal status for 11 million people already living here. Or, magically, we’ll welcome 11 million new citizens without a serious commitment to regulating the millions who still want to come.

The politicians are especially hung up on the timing. Most Republicans insist the border be secure, to varying degrees of certainty, before anyone can receive legal status. Democrats, including President Obama, have been willing to beef up security but say the path to citizenship must proceed on a parallel track.

Some of it is political posturing. Sen. Rand Paul’s idea of forcing Congress to vote repeatedly on whether the border is secure before allowing a citizenship opportunity is a prime example. Congress can’t agree on the day of the week, and especially not if legalizing immigrants were the result of consensus.

After the Congressional Budget Office report said illegal immigration would be reduced only 25 percent by the bipartisan Senate bill, a compromise was offered. It would double the number of border agents and complete the 700-mile fence on the Mexican border. That’s an improvement, but there’s no guarantee Congress will continue to pay for that level of security in the future.

Sen. Chuck Grassley’s concern about timing dates back to the 1986 amnesty, which legalized nearly 3 million people without providing either long-term border security or tough penalties for employers who hire illegal workers.

“Back in ’86, it was right-out amnesty and we thought it would solve the problem once and for all, and it didn’t,” Grassley said Wednesday. Today, he says the so-called Gang of Eight, a bipartisan group of senators who crafted the compromise, believe the same thing.

“You’d get the impression from the authors of this legislation it’d take care of the problem once and forever,” Grassley said.

The Des Moines Register Iowa Poll released last week suggests most Iowans are open to both greater border enforcement and a way for today’s undocumented immigrants to stay here legally. The partisan breakdown, however, shows why compromise is difficult. Only 44 percent of Republicans think a path to citizenship is a worthy goal, and 48 percent say it is not worthy. That compares with 68 percent of Democrats who think it’s a worthy goal and 54 percent of independents.

When it comes to the border, far more Republicans are feeling insecure than Democrats. Seventy percent of GOP members said the border could be a lot more secure — nearly double the percentage of Democrats. Independents fall in the middle, with 58 percent saying border security could be a lot tighter.

The importance of balance in this legislation goes beyond political leverage. There will be no border security unless the United States creates a functional, predictable opportunity for legal guest workers and prospective new citizens. There will be no such process unless the borders are secure, employment depends on legal status and laws are enforced.

Grassley’s right to be concerned if lawmakers believe this legislation will take care of immigration issues now and forever. There has to be an ongoing commitment — and money — for both border security and a functional immigration system. No one today can guarantee that.

The only guarantee is that if one side takes its toys and goes home, we’ll have neither a secure border nor any realistic way to stem the tide of illegal immigration. Then everybody loses.